The Self in Intimate Relationships

Garth J. O. Fletcher and Nickola C. Overall

University of Canterbury University of Auckland

To be presented at the 9th, Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology: The Evolution of the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Cognition

DRAFT ONLY

Garth Fletcher: Garth.Fletcher@Canterbury.ac.nzNickola Overall: N.Overall@Auckland.ac.nz

1

Intimate sexual relationships are (normally) composed of two people – the self and one other individual. In human relationships both men and women choose their mates, as one would expect given that both men and women make substantial investments in long-term relationships (consistent with Triver’s, 1972, parental investment theory). However, in humans mate selection never sleeps and can only be fully understood in relation to mate de-selection. Individuals continue to make decisions and evaluations about their partners and relationships, up to and including the decision to abandon specific relationships (and perhaps start again).

Evolutionary psychologists and social psychologists deal with both the psychology of mate selection and the psychological processes involved in ongoing relationships. However, evolutionary psychologists concentrate on the first aspect of relationship development (mate selection), whereas social psychologists concentrate on the latter domain (the development and maintenance of intimate relationships). This chapter concerns the role of the self both in terms of initial mate selection choices and in the context of ongoing intimate relationships. But the role of the self (vis-à-vis the partner) is more conceptually and methodologically complex than it appears at first sight. Thus, the first section of the chapter completes some preliminary theoretical and methodological work as a springboard for the chapter. Next, we deal with the role of the self in mate selection, and consider various explanations that have been proposed for the phenomenon of assortative mating. In the following section we consider several ways in which the self continues to play a role in ongoing relationships. Finally, we offer some conclusions and discuss some key themes in the chapter.

A Conceptual and Methodological Backdrop

It is important to make some key distinctions (that are sometimes blurred) when referring to the self and partner in intimate relationships. Let’s consider Mary and Bill, who are involved in an ongoing sexual relationship. The self and partner are represented cognitively in the brains (or minds) of Mary and Bill, as lay theories, cognitions, and beliefs. Social psychologists have carried out much research using designs in which couples answer questions about one another in terms of their personality, attractiveness, and so forth. Sometimes they also measure behavior or obtain outside objective ratings of each partner (for example, on their facial attractiveness). Measuring these classes of variables can answer some intriguing questions.

Imagine Mary believes she is only moderately attractive (she thinks she is too fat), but that Bill is very sensitive and wonderfully kind. Bill, in turn, believes that Mary is very attractive (she has the perfect body) but that he is inclined to be insensitive and only moderately kind. The example is not merely apocryphal, but reflects a partner-serving positively-biased pattern repeatedly found in couple-based research (see Fletcher, Simpson, & Boyes, in press, for a review). Note that using the self-judgments as benchmarks in such analyses is a conservative measure of partner bias, given the evidence that such self-judgments themselves are likely to be on the rose-tinted side (see Boyes & Fletcher, 2006).

Collecting this kind of data (illustrated by Mary and Bill’s thoughts above) enables different kinds of questions to be answered. First, one can measure the extent

2

to which individuals project or assume that self is similar to partner on the same traits. Second, the researcher can assess the extent to which couples are similar using either judgments of self or objective measures (assortative mating evidence). Third, the researcher can assess accuracy by correlating partner judgments with the relevant self-judgments (or objective measures of the trait). Finally, individual or couple differences in similarity, projection, positive bias, and accuracy can be used to predict mate choice, relationship stability, and satisfaction.

Finally, it is important to note that bias and accuracy can happily co-exist. To take an example adapted from Fletcher (2002), Mary rates herself (accurately) as very warm, moderately attractive, but as lacking ambition. Bill, her partner, rates Mary as incredibly warm, very attractive, and moderately ambitious. Bill is, thus, positively biased (he is consistently more positive than Mary’s self-perceptions) but quite accurate (he is tracking her self-perceived qualities accurately across the three traits). Indeed, researchers have often reported evidence consistent with this example. For example, Sprecher (1999) reported that those individuals who had flat trajectories of satisfaction over time tended to recall at a later time that they had steadily improved. Nevertheless, the sample overall quite accurately retrospectively tracked and reported relative increases or decreases in love and satisfaction over past periods in their relationships.

With this brief analysis in mind, we move into dealing with the role of the self in mate selection contexts.

The Role of the Self in Mate Selection

A widely replicated finding is that partners in sexual relationships (dating or married) tend to be similar across many characteristics. However, the degree of similarity varies depending on the trait in question. Similarity (assortative) correlations are moderate to high for many traits (from .30 to .80) including age, height, attractiveness, values and attitudes, smoking behavior, intelligence, and so forth (see, for example, Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson, Klohnen, Casillas, Simms, Haig, & Berry, 2004). However, similarity on personality judgments like kindness and conscientiousness is much lower (from zero to .20) (see, for example, Zentner, 2005). There is no evidence that such findings are simply a product of sub-groups of individuals who happen to be similar (e.g., university students) tending to meet, work, and live near each other (Watson et al., 2004). Evolutionary and social psychologists have suggested several substantive explanations, all involving self-perceptions, which we consider in turn.

Going for the Best Deal

The first, and most parsimonious explanation, is that individuals simply attempt to get the best deal on offer in the mating market. In a graduate class the first author (Garth Fletcher) teaches on the science of intimate relationships, he starts the year’s work with a demonstration developed by Ellis and Kelley (1999). The 25 or so students in the class are randomly given cards with numbers on them, ranging from 1-10, that represent their assigned fictional mating value. These cards are held to their foreheads in such a way that others can see them, but remain out of sight for the card-bearer (so that each individual does not know his or her own mate value). The aim of

3

the game is to get together with the individual with the highest mate value possible (biological sex is ignored). Once a mate selection is made, the initiator indicates his selection by attempting to shake hands. If the individual approached spurns the handshake, then the initiator must look elsewhere. As the class members mill about, individuals pair off, until a small and disconsolate group is left, standing in the middle of the room. Inevitably, this group represents the dregs of the mating market, but they too finally pair off in a crestfallen sort of way.

The results typically reveal that the mating values of the paired-up partners are highly correlated (about .70 or so). This demonstration suggests that merely utilizing the heuristic – get the best deal possible – is enough to produce assortative mating in situations where both parties exercise choice. This is, of course, a very stripped down and closed version of real-life settings. In the real-world individuals believe that similarity is important for successful relationships (Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002) and seem to prefer individuals they believe are similar to themselves (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Moreover, it seems likely that from the onset of adolescence onwards individuals receive copious feedback (rejections and dating successes), along with a flood of benchmark images and information in the media, that enable them to accurately assess their own mate value. The development of self-perceptions of mate value should save time and effort, and reduce humiliating rejections to the minimum by encouraging the development of realistic standards.

Some preliminary support for this thesis comes from the class exercise previously described. One procedure sometimes added is that when a couple is formed, indicated by a handshake, then each individual first guesses his or her own mate value number, before taking a peek at the assigned value. Correlations of around .70 between the predicted self-mating values and the actual numbers assigned are produced. Even the limited information gained from their observations of others, and their own experiences, in this class exercise allow individuals to rapidly and accurately assess their own mate value. More substantial evidence for this thesis will be cited in due course.

Seeking Similarity

The fact that people appear to prefer mates who are similar to themselves has lead to the suggestion by Buss (1999) that such a heuristic helps solve adaptive problems of compatibility and promotes bonding, relationship satisfaction, and stability. There is certainly a host of evidence that people who believe they are more similar to their partners in terms of their personalities, abilities, attitudes, and so forth, are happier and more committed to their partners (e.g., Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993; Hammond & Fletcher, 1991). However, although consistent with conventional wisdom, the research evidence that more similarity confers such benefits is decidedly mixed, with many null findings being published (Acitelli. Kenny, & Weiner, 2001; Robins, Caspi, & Moffit, 2000; Watson et al., 2004). The fact is that similarity is not all it’s cracked up to be, which brings us back to the explanation that assortative mating effects are by-products of going for the best deal in town. But, what are people looking for in the mating market? In the next section we discuss the standards people use in selecting and evaluating mates, before considering when and how the self comes back into the picture.

4

Relationship and Partner Standards

Gangestad and Simpson’s (2000) Strategic Pluralism Model of human mating is based around three major postulates. First, the model argues that selection should have generated a small and flexible set of mating strategies and tactics that should be enacted conditionally according to cues in the social and physical environment. Second, without gainsaying the importance of gender differences in mate selection, its main focus is on explaining the considerable within-sex variability of sexual attitudes and behavior. Third, it suggests that human mating strategies and tactics are a function of two kinds of goals – the search for good genes and the search for a good mate and provider.

Evidence has been steadily building for this model (see Simpson and Gangestad this volume), but of course, the model has its limitations. For example, like most evolutionary models, its central concern is with mate selection, and not what happens after eyes meet across a crowded room, or boy meets girl on the internet. Nevertheless, social psychologists will immediately recognize that some key features of the model (principally its focus on the interaction between goals or tactics and cues in the social environment, and its concern with within-sex variability) provide an admirable platform to develop a social psychological theory dealing specifically with the proximal-level processes involved in both mate selection and ongoing relationships.

In this vein, then, Fletcher and Simpson developed a model which is centrally concerned with the standards that people utilize within the context of sexual relationships (termed the Ideal Standards Model) (see Simpson, Fletcher, & Campbell, 2001, for a review). This model was built on four main interlocking hypotheses. First, individuals should possess chronically accessible mate and relationship ideal standards that predate specific relationships and embody considerable within-sex variability. Second, the dimensions on which partners will be evaluated will be derived from the two main goals specified by Gangestad and Simpson (2000), and will not simply represent global mate evaluations. Third, relationship and partner judgments are driven by the perceived consistency between ideal standards and accompanying perceptions. Fourth, the functions of the resultant perceived discrepancies are to help individuals in assessing and meeting three main goals – relationship evaluation, explanation, and regulation (in both mate selection and ongoing mate selection contexts). Fifth, the levels of accuracy and/or bias in relevant judgments are likely to be motivated by two independent overarching goals: the drive for accuracy and truth, versus the desire to maintain positively-biased judgments in ongoing relationships.

The broad tenants of the Ideals Standards Model have been increasingly supported by research evidence. In the first published study, Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, and Giles (1999) showed in a series of factor analytic studies (both exploratory and confirmatory) that there exist three major dimensions that individuals consider when evaluating (or regulating) both prospective and current romantic partners: warmth/trustworthiness, attractiveness/vitality, and status/resources. In addition, there is substantial within-sex variability in the importance attached to each trait or dimension. Table 1 shows the items for each scale derived from this work that we have since used successfully in further research. These findings are consistent with the argument from the Strategic Pluralism Model that evaluating mates could have

5

promoted the reproductive success of our ancestors via two distinct routes – either good investment and/or good genes. The possession of warmth and trustworthiness signals the motivation to invest in the mate and the children, the possession of status and resources (or the drive to obtain them) signals that the individual has the means to provide good investment, and the possession of attractiveness and vitality is often held to indicate good genes, signaling higher fertility and perhaps better long-term health, although this latter claim remains controversial (for recent reviews see Rhodes, 2006, and Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005).

In addition, there is good evidence across several studies (both cross-sectional and longitudinal) that greater perceived consistency between standards and partner perceptions (for both men and women) is related to a) higher levels of relationship satisfaction (Fletcher et al., 1999; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; b) lower rates of relationship dissolution (Fletcher et al., 2000) and c) weaker desires and attempts to regulate or change the partner (e.g., make them more attractive or ambitious) (Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, in press). Moreover, in all of these studies, the links between standards/perceptions consistency and evaluation or regulation operate within each dimension independently; they are not simply artifacts of halo effects or global evaluations of the relationship. Finally, to add some further predictive validity, using the scales shown on Table 1, we have consistently found the same sex differences reported in other research; namely, women give greater importance than men (in long-term relationships) to warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources, and less importance to attractiveness/vitality (see, for example, Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004).

What is the origin of individual within-sex differences in the importance attached to mate standards? The answer suggested by our prior discussion is that the prime determinant is likely to be self-perceptions of mate value. However, the research and theorizing on the Ideals Standards Model suggests that such self- perceptions are not likely to operate simply in a global fashion, but according to the dimensions already found to exist for evaluating potential or current mates; namely, warmth/trustworthiness, attractiveness/vitality, and status/resources. Provisional evidence is consistent with this thesis. Fletcher & Boyes (2004) had 200 individuals rate themselves on mate value using the scales developed by Fletcher et al. (1999) to assess the importance attached to qualities in prospective mates (see Table 1). A confirmatory factor analysis revealed the same tripartite structure for self-mate evaluations as found in prior research for potential partners. Moreover, correlating the two sets of ratings showed the expected pattern of discriminant and convergent correlations (see Table 2). More positive self-evaluations on given dimensions were related to higher importance attached to ideal standards on the same dimensions, but typically not for the off-diagonal correlations.

Although this evidence is suggestive it is hardly conclusive, given that the scales used to assess self-perceived mate value were derived from research specifically designed to assess individual differences in the extent to which people attach importance to different characteristics of potential or actual partners. What comes out of a factor analysis depends on what items go in, it could be reasonably argued. Thus, Fletcher, Boyes, Overall, and Kavanagh (2006) recently completed a series of studies designed to assess self-perceptions of mate value starting from

6

scratch. In the first study, samples of university students and older individuals (both men and women) wrote down their strengths and weaknesses in terms of what they could offer in finding either a desirable mate or maintaining a successful intimate relationship. These items were then coded, sticking close to the wording used by respondents, to produce 60 individual items. These items were then turned into a scale, which can be rated in terms of how accurately each item describes the self. The next two studies involved different samples of 200 individuals. Initially using an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis, the same factorial structure was produced across samples, with primarily the same items loading on each factor. Moreover, this factor structure replicated across both gender and relationship status.

Table 3 shows the three best loading items for each factor, their factor loadings, and the suggested names for each factor. At face value, five out of the six self-perception categories seem to overlap with the scales previously derived to assess the perceived merits of traits in potential or actual partners in relationships: caring, open, sexy, outgoing, and status. The odd one out is secure. To establish the case empirically, and to further assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, we administered the self-perception of mate value scale to a sample of 200 individuals (100 men and 100 women) along with scales measuring the importance of ideals standards in partners, self-esteem, the Big Five personality ratings, attachment, and relationship quality (completed by a sub-sample of 100 currently involved in sexual relationships).

The results were very close to what was expected. Of the 66 correlations, all 14 of the predicted convergent correlations were significant, ranging from .20 to .64. Of the remaining 52 discriminant correlations, only five exceeded .20 and none exceeded .23. Most importantly (controlling for self-esteem), a) superior self-perceptions of caring and openness were associated with more weight given to warmth/trustworthiness in a potential partner, b) higher self-perceptions of being sexy and outgoing were associated with more importance attached to attractiveness/vitality, and c) more positive perceptions of status in the self were associated with more weight given to status/resources. The correlations with the Big Five were also revealing, showing that the Big Five caught three of the six mate self-perception categories (Caring, Outgoing, and Stable) but missed three distinctive categories of mate evaluation (Open, Status and Sexy). Not surprisingly, global self-esteem was positively and significantly related to all six self-perception categories. However, when we regressed self-esteem on all six self-perception categories, only two self-perception categories remained significant positive predictors (for both men and women): sexy and stable (β’s from .30 to .41).

To summarize, these results revealed independent evidence that self-perceptions of mate-value largely mirror the three important categories previously found for evaluating potential or actual relationship partners, and that self-perceptions of mate value may undergird the way on which individuals set their standards for evaluating their mates. In addition, the measurement of self-perceptions of mate value does not seem to be redundant with existing measures of the self developed by personality and social psychologists, and includes specific categories suggested by The Ideals Standards Model and its evolutionary cousins.

7

Caveats and objections. Thus far, we have argued that (mirroring the research on ideal standards) self-perceptions of mate value operate along independent dimensions. However this is somewhat misleading. In all the CFA analyses mentioned, the results actually show that the separate categories (for both partner ideal standards and self-perceptions of mate value) are quasi-independent and that the best-fitting models include second-order factors representing the possession of more global demanding standards or more positive perceptions of mate value respectively. These results suggest that the relevant social cognitive modules are stored in both a simple global form and in terms of more differentiated structures. Depending on the demands of the context, and the importance and nature of the decision, either cognitive model may be accessed and used. For example, rating a potential date my invoke a quick initial judgment based on the overall impression of the individual, whereas deciding whether to marry an individual will be likely to involve a more considered evaluation, analyzing each domain in turn.

Finally, consistent again with Gangestad and Simpson’s (2000) model, there is no doubt that people frequently indulge in trade-offs, taking into account many factors including their own mate value and that of their potential partner. However, yet another prediction of the Ideal Standards Model, is that such trade-offs will typically occur across the three dimensions. Li and his colleagues have argued, with research support, that some features are likely to be necessities and others may be luxuries (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). For example, in long-term relationships they propose that for men partner attractiveness is a necessity, whereas, for women status/resources is a necessity. For both genders, in contrast, warmth/trustworthiness is a necessity. We do not find their arguments wholly convincing. In Fletcher et al. (2004) we manipulated the extent to which the familiar three mate selection categories were present in potential mates across both short-term and long-term relationship contexts. The results suggested that such choices were the product of a complex interaction between gender, context, and the traits being traded off. For example, in long term relationships most individuals chose a warm, homely person over a cold, attractive alternative, whereas for a short-term fling the trade-offs went in the opposite direction. However significant gender differences were also apparent in both short-term and long-term settings, with women more consistently choosing a warm, kind individual over a sexy, attractive person. In short, although this pattern of findings is consistent with Li et al’s argument, tradeoffs were apparent for some individuals regardless of gender, context, and the traits in question.

Two crucial empirical questions remain that potentially sink virtually all evolutionary and social psychological models of mate selection, including those presented here; namely, are individuals’ judgments of both their own traits and those of potential mates accurate? One cannot assume in advance that the answer will be in the affirmative. As previously noted, for example, individuals believe that more similarity between partners produces more happiness, and happier couples believe they have more similar personalities. However, the research evidence indicates individuals are largely mistaken on both counts.

Most relevant research has been conducted in relation to two out of the three pivotal mate selection categories: characteristics such as warmth/ trustworthiness, extraversion, and attractiveness. The evidence is clear-cut. First, after minimal observation or interaction, ratings of strangers in terms of both physical attractiveness

8

and extraversion are reasonably accurate (see, for example, Langlois, et al., 2000; Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). These conclusions are based on findings that examine the extent to which different people achieve consensus about a target and the extent to which self-perceptions of the target are consistent with either some objective benchmark or the views of observers.

To take one particularly compelling research example, high in ecological validity, Marcus and Miller (2003) had participants rate their own physical attractiveness and that of other men and women who were sitting together in small groups. There was good consensus on the level of attractiveness for specific targets, and targets’ self-perceptions generally matched well with how they were perceived (correlations ranging from .28 to .53). Moreover, individuals’ meta-perceptions of how they were perceived generally by others were generally accurate (correlations ranging from .26 to .49). As the authors conclude, “we know who is handsome or pretty, and those who are attractive know it as well” (p. 344). From an evolutionary standpoint, one would also expect men to produce particularly accurate perceptions of women’s attractiveness and women should be on the money when it comes to judging how they are rated by men. Both predictions were confirmed. The highest level of consensus was reached by different men rating the same women (41% of the target variance), and the most accurate meta-awareness was achieved by women rating how they were generally perceived by men (r = .49).

In contrast to physical attractiveness and extraversion, the accuracy in rating strangers in terms of traits, such as warmth and kindness, is abysmal, but does climb to quite respectable levels as a function of increased closeness and knowledge of the target (Funder & Colvin, 1988; Thomas, 1999). For example, Thomas had individuals observe men and women currently involved in sexual relationships having a 5 minute discussion of capital punishment, and then rate each partner on the Big Five traits. Self-other agreement was low for all five categories when strangers carried out the task (from zero to .20; mean r = .10), considerably higher when friends carried out the same task (from .20 to .45, mean r = .34), and better still when partners rated each other (from .29 to .48, mean r = .41). Consensus across raters told the same story, with good agreement across partners and friends when rating the same targets (from .20 to .42, mean r = .34) and weak consensus across strangers and either partners and friends (zero to .21; mean r = .09).

The difference between the accuracy in rating personality traits like emotional stability or conscientiousness versus more immediately observable qualities (such as attractiveness) when levels of acquaintanceship are low, may explain why the assortative correlations for the latter traits are much higher than the former traits (as described previously). People may seek similarity on personality traits, but their personality judgments are generally initially inaccurate. By the time individuals get to know their partners better, the inexorable processes of attraction, falling in love, and bonding (driven by neuropeptides such as oxytocin) are too far advanced to claw back, and the actual similarity between the partners may become largely irrelevant.

The pivotal and reassuring conclusion to be drawn from this work is that, although the evidence is not complete, both individuals’ self-judgments and their judgments of potential or existing partners seem to be reasonably accurate for both men and women, specifically for traits that are pivotal in mate selection contexts.

9

The Self Never Sleeps

Having discussed the pivotal role of the self in mate selection contexts, we move to briefly consider its fate and fortune in ongoing relationships. An examination of the research which has directly compared the impact of self to partner judgments gives initial pause to an over-enthusiastic endorsement of the role of the self in ongoing relationships. In brief, the standard research finding reveals that partner judgments play a much more powerful role in predicting relationship satisfaction than self-judgments (e.g., Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Friesen, Fletcher & Overall, 2005; Fletcher & Thomas, 2000; Overall et al., in press; Sümer & Cozzarelli, 2004).

Even so, it is clear that the self remains directing traffic behind the relationship scenes after relationships are in full swing, and is itself buffeted by the powerful psychological forces at work in intimate relationships. As already described, the perceived consistency between ideal standards and perceptions is a fundamental driver of important evaluations and decisions in the development of intimate relationships, up to and including decisions to leave. And self-judgments continue to influence the importance attached to specific standards. However, self-judgments are particularly vulnerable to change in intimate relationships, readily becoming the dependent variable instead of the independent variable. A recent study by Overall et al. (in press) is a good illustration of this process.

Overall et al. (in press) reported (in two studies) that greater regulation attempts of the partner were associated with lower consistency between ideal standards and perceptions, which in turn were related to lower relationship satisfaction. A longitudinal, cross-lagged study confirmed that lower perceived consistency between standards and perceptions of the partner motivated more regulation over time, and that more regulation also produced lower levels of standard/perception consistency (and associated relationship satisfaction) over time. The latter finding may seem paradoxical – the aim of regulation is presumably to make relationships better and lower the gap between perceptions and expectations, yet it seemed to make things worse.

In further analyses of their data, Overall et al. discovered that the key to these latter findings was related to what regulation attempts communicate to the partner. As this, and other research, has suggested, a powerful determinant of relationship satisfaction is how individuals believe they are viewed by their partners. If Bill is unhappy with Mary’s level of attractiveness, and suggests she loses weight and join a gym, then, according to the findings from Overall et al., Mary is likely to do one or more of the following: a) develop more negative perceptions of her own attractiveness, b) realize that Bill does not fulsomely accept her the way she is, and c) start regulating herself on this dimension. Mary’s relationship satisfaction is also likely to become more negative. Interestingly, consistent with evolutionary models of mate selection, women tended to regulate their own levels of attractiveness specifically in response to their male partners’ regulatory attempts, whereas men reported trying to change themselves principally in response to their female partners’ attempts to improve their ambition or status.

10

The fact that regulation efforts tend to commonly backfire, and people become even unhappier with the relationship, raises questions about the functions of the relationship monitoring and regulation system. From a distal evolutionary approach, the functions of an adaptation or behavior are defined in terms of the costs and benefits vis-à-vis reproductive fitness, and do not necessarily equate to increased happiness. For example, one reason why humans may have evolved the relationship monitoring and regulation system was to loosen the powerful bonds of love and attachment when standards were not being met, thus enabling individuals to look elsewhere for a new partner and relationship. Alternately, perhaps a principal function of our ancestral relationship monitoring and regulation system was indeed to improve relationships, but it fails because the contemporary social and cultural environment has changed so that it no longer matches the ancestral environment within which the relevant adaptations developed. For example, perhaps contemporary Western cultures, with thousands of accessible partners apparently a mouse-click away, barrages of self-help books and TV shows about relationships and how to make them better, constant images of attractive alternatives, and people apparently having great sex everywhere, have heightened people’s expectations and standards to the extent that the relationship monitoring and regulation system has been put into overdrive and, thus, has become relatively dysfunctional in the modern environment.

Conclusions

The mate-selection decisions people make seem to be based (in part) on realistic assessments of their own mate value, and, thus, guide who they are likely to be able to attract, or who to realistically settle for in a long-term (or even short-term) relationship. Hence, in our view, the major driver of assortative mating correlations is probably the motivation for individuals to obtain the best deal going, rather than the desire to find a similar soul-mate. However, humans have unusual mating patterns compared to other species, continuing to monitor and regulate their sexual relationships (often ending and replacing them) over long periods of time. Accordingly, the role of the self does not cease after mates have been selected but continues throughout the course of specific relationships.

We trust this chapter shows at least a glimpse of the theoretical and research gains that are obtainable when social cognitive and evolutionary approaches join forces to detail and explain the workings of the intimate relationship mind, and its links to interpersonal behavior.

11

References

Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first

year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5-19.

Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., & Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of the similarity

and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal

Relationships, 8, 167-186.

Albright, L., Kenny, D., & Malloy, T. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at

zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387-395.

Boyes, A. D., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2006). Meta-perceptions of bias in intimate

relationships. Submitted for publication.

Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Ellis, B. J., & Kelley, H. H. (1999). The pairing game: A classroom demonstration of

the matching phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 118-121.

Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). The new science of intimate relationships. Malden, MA, US:

Blackwell Publishers.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Boyes. A. D. (2004). Bias and accuracy in perceptions of mate

value. Paper presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,

Austin, Texas.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Boyes, A. D., Overall N. C., & Kavanagh, P. (2006). Self-

perceptions of mate value. Unpublished manuscript. University of Canterbury,

New Zealand.

12

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). Attributional processes in close

relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close

relationships (pp. 6-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., & Boyes. A.D. (in press). Accuracy and bias in

romantic relationships: An evolutionary and social psychological analysis. In M.

Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology.

New York: Psychology Press.

Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and

evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79, 933-940.

Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., Thomas, G., & Giles, T. (1999). Ideals in intimate

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

Fletcher, G.J.O., Tither, J.M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M.D., & Overall, N.C. (2004).

Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in

mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (2000). Behavior and on-line cognition in marital

interaction. Personal Relationships, 7, 111-130.

Friesen, M. D., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Overall, N. C. (2005). A dyadic assessment of

forgiveness in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 12, 61-77.

Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship,

agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 149-158.

Gangestad, S.W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical

attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523-548.

13

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-

offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.

Hammond, J. R., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1991). Attachment styles and relationship

satisfaction in the development of close relationships. New Zealand Journal of

Psychology, 20, 56-62.

Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal

Relationships, 9, 253-270.

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: what is

attractive – self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment

security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot,

M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.

Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423.

Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The

necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.

Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in

newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 304-326.

Marcus, D. K., & Miller R. S. (2003). Sex differences in judgments of physical

attractiveness: A social relations analysis. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29, 325-335.

14

Overall, N, C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson J. A. (in press). Regulation Processes in

Intimate Relationships: The Role of Ideal Standards. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of

Psychology, 57, 199-226.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:

Both partners' personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259.

Simpson, J.A., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Campbell, L. (2001). The structure and function of

ideal standards in close relationships. In G.J.O. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.),

Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp 86-106).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Sprecher, S. (1999). "I love you more today than yesterday": Romantic partners'

perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 76, 46-53.

Sümer, N., & Cozzarelli, C. (2004). The impact of adult attachment on partner and

self-attributions and relationship quality. Personal relationships, 11, 355-371.

Thomas, G. (1999). Accuracy in empathic and trait judgments: the quest for the good

judge, good target, good trait, and good relationship. Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Canterbury.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),

Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago:

Aldine.

15

Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S.

(2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in

newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.

Zentner, M. R. (2005). Ideal mate personality concepts and compatibility in close

relationships: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 89, 242-256.

16

Table 1

Partner Ideal Standard Scales (Fletcher et al., 1999)

• Partner Warmth/Trustworthiness: understanding, supportive, considerate, kind, a good listener, sensitive.

• Partner Vitality/Attractiveness: adventurous, nice body, outgoing, sexy, attractive, good lover.

• Partner Status/Resources: good job, financially secure, nice house or apartment, appropriate ethnicity, successful, dresses well

From: Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (1999). Ideals in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

Table 2

Convergent/Discriminant Correlations Among Self-rated Mate Value and Ideals

Self Warmth/Trustworthiness

Self Vitality/Attractiveness

Self Status/Resources

IdealWarmth/Trustworthiness

IdealVitality/Attractiveness

IdealStatus/Resources

.53* .26* .11*

.04 .54* .23*

.10 .29* .37*p < .05

n = 200

17

Table 3

Factors and Loadings for Self Perceptions of Mate Value (n = 200)

Caring: caring (.85), kind (.84), considerate (.81)Open: talks openly (.79), open (.79), ability to

commit (.64)Sexy: sexy (.87), attractive (.84), nice body (.77)Outgoing: outgoing (.80), good social skills (.77),

funny (.64)Status: good job (.80), wealthy (.72), ambitious

(.54)Stable: emotionally stable (.87), secure (.84), good

self esteem (.75)

18